Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Abandonment of Morality

Posted on: May 12, 2007 - 11:17pm

dandres87

Posts: 7

Joined: 2007-05-12

Offline

Abandonment of Morality

No offense, but I only know of a few athiests that do not accept "morality" Why isn't that morality is abandoned by the rest? I honestly think that other athiests are pansies and give into a form of 'ad populum'. I know it is scary to abandon "morality" but the result is an 'intellectually' (intellect is subjective) coherant/consistent belief system; lets just say consistent to make it simple. inconsistent beliefs border on irrationality (i know people, myself included are not 100% 'rational&#39 Drop your morality since it doesn't fit. Join the real world and end crutches and opium of life. Stop throwing stones at the religious until you abandon your morality like me, join nature, be free of some ancient weakling.

But morality is an evolutionary/cognitive/neurological/conditioning phenomenon generated by neuroplasticity, synaptogenesis, evolutionary instinct, hormone control, life experience and societal condition.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

"morality makes senses" okay I understand that you have a conclusion, how bout some premises?

Why dont any other creatures have any sense of morality, surely our closest relative, the monkey should have some sort of it. Morality, logically doesnt just leave no traces in monkey or links and pop up in "humanity". I find you convulated explanation amusing, but simply put, theoretical (no not like the theory of gravity) The idea of morality is convulated, not chemical. And even if it was chemical does that necesitate its validity? (if so then why do criminals get charged for their actions that resulted from a chemical 'problem' -i say problem like that becuase morality says his action is wrong/problematic-afterall chemical reactions justify ideas, such as morality or murder but of course you dont go telling your friends that)

I have no 'morality', I abide by the laws of the land to forgoe the consequences. I read the link but you must have misunderstood. You are suggesting you have a higher form of athiesm than mine? I think your morality is less athiestic than my non-moral code. Did I miss somthing? That article had nothing to do with my point or beliefs. Please address and pay attention

Why does everyone seek to justify morality, its no natural. I cant convince a christian intuitiionist that morality is not natural. On the other hand an athiest like me, I would think, would more readily agree on the the irrationionality of moral codes. But honestly, it seems as though people are justifyin their DOGMATIC beliefs of morality. Its okay, society has formed almost everyone to accept the idea of morality. Since the western culture is terribly prevalent almost everyone ill justify their idea of morality without any conclusive valid premises to support the claim.

Why dont any other creatures have any sense of morality, surely our closest relative, the monkey should have some sort of it.

They do. Primates are very social creature that do develop societal codes.

Morality, logically doesnt just leave no traces in monkey or links and pop up in "humanity".

That's ridiculous.

I find you convulated explanation amusing, but simply put, theoretical (no not like the theory of gravity) The idea of morality is convulated, not chemical.

Care to elaborate?

And even if it was chemical does that necesitate its validity? (if so then why do criminals get charged for their actions that resulted from a chemical 'problem' -i say problem like that becuase morality says his action is wrong/problematic-afterall chemical reactions justify ideas, such as morality or murder but of course you dont go telling your friends that)

LOL. You just made a ridiculous fallacy of composition. By that same logic, whenever I go diving, I shouldn't need to take an oxygen tank. Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. So there's already plenty!

ut honestly, it seems as though people are justifyin their DOGMATIC beliefs of morality. Its okay, society has formed almost everyone to accept the idea of morality.

All you can do is whine. To back me up, on the other hand, is a veritable army of cognitive neuroscientists, neurobiologists, biochemists, physcologists, evolutionary biologists etc ad infinitum.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

Just like having the ability to reason, humans also have the ability to determine right from wrong. What's the definition of morals? "To have the ability to discern right from wrong". So... basically you're abandoning the use of the ability to determine what is right and what is wrong? Morality is natural, however like reason and logic, humans have the ability to ignore it.

And quite personally, I don't see what is wrong with morality. Morality is doing what is right.. what could be wrong with that?

"Why would God send his only son to die an agonizing death to redeem an insignificant bit of carbon?"-Victor J. Stenger.

No offense, but I only know of a few athiests that do not accept "morality" Why isn't that morality is abandoned by the rest? I honestly think that other athiests are pansies and give into a form of 'ad populum'. I know it is scary to abandon "morality" but the result is an 'intellectually' (intellect is subjective) coherant/consistent belief system; lets just say consistent to make it simple. inconsistent beliefs border on irrationality (i know people, myself included are not 100% 'rational&#39 Drop your morality since it doesn't fit. Join the real world and end crutches and opium of life. Stop throwing stones at the religious until you abandon your morality like me, join nature, be free of some ancient weakling.

The answer is pretty simple (if you understand that you probably aren't going to get an unbiased answer from anyone around here.

Atheism (or more accurately for what is meant around here "naturalism" is a worldview like any other. I will leave it up to conjecture as to whether or not it is a religion, suffice to say that determines a good bit of how the world is viewed via origins, processess, etc. (hence the word "worldview&quot

All worldviews have three parts: Metaphysics (the nature of reality), Episemology (knowledge foundations) and your own subject of morality (correct term for my context is "ethics.&quot

Naturalism takes an extreme position on the metaphysical branch by saying all that is is physical. Any position on the other two is a non sequitor from the metaphysical position because there is no way to apply a neurochemical reaction as a universal.

So the ethical positions that any atheist holds is open to disagreement with other atheists.

Ergo atheism cannot universally apply an ethical code. Read deludedgod's essay on morality and you will see that. Even the source of the ethical code is centered around the non-universal applicability of any one code (but it also contradicts itself by trying to explain all human ethical behavior. In effect, it is a self-defeating argument because it universally applies a non-universal ethical standard as a universal ethical standard.)

"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron

Ergo atheism cannot universally apply an ethical code. Read deludedgod's essay on morality and you will see that.

I discussed all those points a long time ago with that blabbermouth augustine, who has since stopped posting. You can find them yourself if you wish, I believe in another thread, one of the few he posted in. Be warned though, it is so long-winded and tiresome. Trawl through it at your own risk, and be wary of your mental health. The debate got really loopy and ended up being about the evolution of blood clotting, which I responded to here. http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/yellow_number_five/evolution_of_life/5975

He has as of yet not responded for some weeks now.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

Ethics and a natural regeneration process within the body are related?

Dont ask how it ended up there...

Can you post a link to that debate, though? I would at least like to read the first page or so.

That thread has probably been inactive for months. I'll see if I can find it.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

Ergo atheism cannot universally apply an ethical code. Read deludedgod's essay on morality and you will see that. Even the source of the ethical code is centered around the non-universal applicability of any one code (but it also contradicts itself by trying to explain all human ethical behavior. In effect, it is a self-defeating argument because it universally applies a non-universal ethical standard as a universal ethical standard.)

There are two possible sources for a universal ethical code:

1. Purely rational analysis of what is best for society and the individual. Unfortunately, we have been too saddled with religious dogma all through history to actually give this one a try anywhere. The highly secular ethical trends of Western Europe and Canada are probably the closest to this, but still have a long way to go.

2. Our hardwired behavioural coding which determines our natural social preferences and healthy state of emotional and mental being. We are still learning about these and will probably require some big advancements in neurology to understand how our genetic coding translates into brain development which becomes behaviour, but there's hope for the future.

These are possible sources of a real, intrinsic moral and ethical position. As we have seen from Todangst's essay, Christianity doesn't address morality at all, but rather appeals to a straight carrot and stick calculation of benefit.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

What I don't get is why we should need God in order to know right and wrong? Most people don't need an authority figure to keep them acting decently. An authority figure is only needed for those few people who put the interests of others in jeopardy by lack of moral agency.

As has been said, morality is natural. It comes from our evolutionary nature to live in groups.